"The Abbey in America:
The Real
Thing"

A copy
of the
paper that Prof. Harrington gave has been deposited with University
Seminars.The following is a
synopsis of the paper.

Prof. Harrington opened his talk
with an observation about the
timeliness of his paper--in this, the hundredth year of the Abbey, the
theatre
returns to New York with a new production of The Playboy of the
Western
World.

Just before the Abbey arrived in
the U.S. in 1914, for the third time
in as many years, the Evening Sun referred to a production of
Tolstoy by
the Neighbourhood Playhouse as being played by Russian "Irish Players,"
the
name of the Abbey's touring company.Even then Abbey was a distinctive style that could be applied
opportunistically, and very unscientifically.The
Abbey is still recognised as an exceptional producing
company offering something very unlike New York theatres.The exceptionality is, however, lost in
a haze of literary and popular culture associations, as was made clear
in 2003
when the New York press consistently associated the Abbey with James
Joyce.Throughout the twentieth
century there has been an emphasis in the U.S. on Abbey Authenticity,
on its
status as "The Real Thing," with all the complications brought to bear
on that
phrase by Henry James and Tom Stoppard.

Understanding
the brand that is the Abbey Theatre takes a recognition of two
underlying
factors.The first is that America
is green with envy over its own lack of a national theatre, and the
second is
that the Abbey is unique even as national theatres go, and has chosen a
difficult path for itself when abroad.Henry Arthur Jones, successful London playwright, spoke at
Columbia
University about national theatres on the eve of the Abbey's first
visit in
1911, arguing that the duty of a national theatre was to foster a
national
dramatic literature by subsidising productions.He
told the Americans that they couldn't have a national
theatre because they didn't have plays for it to stage.The efforts to create a national
theatre in the U.S. ranged from an attempt to form a provincial
performing arts
organisation, to Eva La Gallienne's Civic Repertory theatre, which
aimed to
perform nationally important productions from around the world.The Abbey in 1911 offered an artistic
expression of national sentiment in the form of repertory drama
delivered to
foreign audiences in their home, performing "works by Irish writers or
on Irish
subjects." The theatre was defined by a content, a repertory.It was never received with unqualified
applause--indeed the initial visit resulted in the total estrangement
of the
Irish nationalist audience in the U.S.One result of the Abbey's first tours was imitation, including
Whitford
Kane's The Irish Players of America.This continued throughout the 1920s, in the absence of any Abbey
presence.

When
the Abbey returned in a series of tours from 1931 to 1935 it was very
careful
to guard its authenticity, and its 1935 programme was very clear in
distinguishing the company from imitators.What
gave it its authenticity was is repertory--it had 300
plays, came with 27, and preferred to perform 12.The
audience could choose which of the plays of the 12 it
wished to see.

One
of the oddest episodes in the history of the Abbey Theatre in America
was the
production of Tom McIntyre's The Great Hunger in 1988.Many were expecting the great famine, or at the very least the
real
Abbey, and walked out in anger.The reception was uniformly negative.Mel
Gussow of The New York Times was expecting from the Abbey
both
unfamiliarity and disingenuousness, but instead it offered what New
York
already had: innovative theatre.As the Abbey moved outside its own repertory it, paradoxically,
moved
into more familiar territory.

So
it seems to bode well, Prof. Harrington observed, that the Abbey is
building
its centenary event around The Playboy of the Western World.Its basis for international success has been difference:
difference from
the very broad spectrum of work to be found in American theatres,
difference in
its maintenance of a distinct repertory, and difference in enduring
beyond the
expectations of a nationalist audience and subsequently an art audience.Prof. Harrington concluded by
professing to be surprised at his own conclusion--that the Abbey in
America has
followed a narrow repertory, and that has been a good thing.

Discussion:

Q. Part of what you are saying is
that the
plays of the Abbey are traditional as well as the productions.An innovative Playboy seems almost
impossible--expectations for the
play are so very narrow.

A. There is a difference between a
national
theatre and a theatre company in terms of how innovative they can be.The Abbey has remained true to itself
over a century, which is unusual, and for foreign audiences that is its
best
feature.

Q. I have seen the Abbey's new
production of Playboy.The reception of this Playboy will be very much bound up with
the production of the
play, as was the reception of The Great Hunger.The
set
was designed by a Canadian designer.

A. I have seen pictures of it, and
it
certainly looks unusual--it is not the typical cottage scene.However, the reception in 2004 may very
well be different from the reception in 1988.

Q. Good ideas are not always
good--this is an
innovative production, and is not a bad idea.It
is a much less textual production than others.However,
it is a problematic
production, neither a success nor a failure.

Q. The Abbey seems to be very much
associated
with the playwright, and not just the play.For
this reason there was a ruckus over the decision to
bring The Great Hunger to
Russia.

A. Fintan O'Toole predicted
recently that the
Irish play would become less textual, but a year later he wrote that he
had
been wrong to make that prediction.

Q. Theatre in Ireland seems to be
keyed up not
only over the question of a what a national theatre is or should be,
but also
over what its repertoire should be.

Q. What has been the rationale for
choosing
different plays for different places?Why, for example, was The Gigli Concert chosen for the Australian tour?

A. I don't know the inside decision
on that.

Q. New York is going to see the Playboy--the decision seems to be based
on what the
audience wants.

A. Yes, it could be that the U.S.
audience is
being patronised, or it could be that the Abbey is worried about
bringing to
New York what it already has--innovative plays and innovative
productions.

Q. If the Abbey was or is to be
considered the
national theatre the construction of the nation seems to be very
conservative.Doesn't that seem
sort of creepy?

A. It has been well defined, but I
don't know
that well defined naturally leads to it being conservative.There are merits to exploring within
boundaries rather than outside them.I have been consumed recently by New York's Neighbourhood
Playhouse,
which wanted to prove that social activism was not separate from high
art.The theatre had mishaps, but only
when
it stepped outside the boundaries.

Q. When I went to see the Abbey's
production
of The Great Hunger in
1988 I went with a group of students.The play was performed in a cavernous, half-empty space.My students were very happy to know
that they were getting what the Abbey does at home, not something
cooked up for
a New York audience.The audience
wanted to see the Abbey actually doing what they would at home.I thought that play fulfilled a
mission.

A. Your memory is different from
mine.I was with my parents, you were with
your students--these are quite different constituencies.The reviews were striking in their agreement--they
were negative.

Q. All of these questions seem to
be bound up
with the question of what Ireland signfies, and with change in its
identity.

A. I would agree, and perhaps as
Ireland
changes the repertoires should too.

Q. Is there a move in national
theatres now for
more definition of their role and the nation?

A. That was certainly true in the
nineteenth
century, but I don't see any energy behind that idea now.Indeed, a national anything seems to be very much out of
fashion
now.The Irish Museum of Modern
Art is involved in a struggle right now also to define its role, but it
is not
being thought of in terms of the nation.These are dark days for nationalism, not just for national
theatres.

Q. I was in Dublin this summer, and
there was
a general critique of the summer offerings of the Abbey--many feel that
the
summer schedule consists only of plays that will attract tourists.This seems to be the same issue as the
issue of the Abbey on tour in the U.S.Ñis it simply that
pragmatism determines
the schedule?

A. I think there is a different
between the
summer trade at home and what you would put on abroad.I would need to think about that
question some more, though.This
type of play is not confined to the summer, though--the Druid Theatre
Company
put on a production of the Playboy in February this year.The Abbey is very much criticised for its
summer plays.Thanks to the Abbey's
traditional
offerings, however, other theatres, such as the Gate, get a chance to
be more
adventurous.

Q. I have lived in Dublin in recent
years, and
I was among the youngest at the theatre.I am wondering what is in store for Irish drama.

A. I think the Abbey is wondering
too!It is a big issue in New York City
too,
with the Metropolitan Opera and other cultural institutions.It is not just the play that brings in
the audience--it is how people remember the Abbey.I wonder how much would change if the Abbey's building were
to be demolished and a new Abbey theatre built.